Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Meesha Nehru reminds us of the importance of fair taxes (and tax authorities capable of ensuring they're paid). And Fair Tax Mark notes that for the first time, a company on the U.K.'s main stock exchange has made the effort to be accredited as paying its taxes fairly.

- But in less pleasant news, Chris Rose exposes the hundreds of millions of dollars the fossil fuel industry spent lobbying and influencing U.S. politicians last year - and the multi-trillion dollar reward they received for exploiting resources and the public alike. And Gabriel Nadeau-Dubious discusses the similarly incestuous connections between the oil industry and the Couillard Liberals.

- Meanwhile, the Star reports on Ontario's gross environmental neglect in allowing contaminated soil to be dumped where it can do the most damage.

- Kathleen Lahey slams the Cons' income-splitting scheme as "upside-down" in giving far larger benefits to precisely the families who least need help.

- Finally, Charles Plante and Keisha Sharp take a detailed look (PDF) at the costs of poverty in Saskatchewan - and the corresponding benefits of ensuring that nobody has to live with needless deprivation:

Poverty is costing Saskatchewan $3.8 billion in heightened service use and missed opportunities. The costs associated with treating the symptoms of poverty amount to over $1 billion a year in increased use of health services, expenses in the criminal justice system and social assistance payments.

The costs of poverty go well beyond the dollars and cents spent providing a modicum of social security for people that have fallen through the cracks. Those living in poverty face significant barriers, preventing them from taking advantage of opportunities people not living in poverty often take for granted. These are opportunities like seeking an education, gainful employment, and participating in civic life. Over time, these missed opportunities contribute to vicious cycles that affect people living in poverty for years to come. Immediate missed opportunities cost our province more than $2.5 billion a year in missing contributions to GDP and taxes. Long-term intergenerational missed opportunities cost us upwards of $200 million a year.

All too often poverty prevention and alleviation efforts are presented as all cost and no benefit. By better understanding the costs of poverty in our province we are able to make informed decisions about how much money and resources we should invest in acting to prevent and alleviate it.

A wide open field

Others have already weighed in on Quebec's election results. But let's note that for all the drama of an election where it was an open question whether voters could stomach any of the three main contenders, the outcome may set the stage for sweeping changes in the fairly near future.

I've already pointed out an apparent opening for a Quebec NDP to win over a large number of voters. And last night's results could hardly have been better designed for the NDP join the mix in the next election cycle - even if they figure to produce some negative outcomes in the short term.

For at least the next couple of years, the right looks to be in the driver's seat in Quebec. The CAQ, holding a solid balance of power, will be able to control the agenda of the governing PQ. And I wouldn't be surprised to see links develop between the CAQ and the Harper Cons to make sure that any devolution of power happens only on the Cons' terms.

But if Quebec's political direction is going to be based on the common ground available between the CAQ, Cons and PQ, that figures to raise questions for a large number of voters who voted PQ based on its (however questionable) self-identification as a progressive party. And while an impending leadership race might offer an opportunity for the Libs to move into that void, it's doubtful that they can erase the memory of their most recent government within a single minority term.

Meanwhile, last night's results don't signal any huge growth potential among Quebec's smaller parties either. Quebec Solidaire added only a single extra seat to its total and fell far short of the balance of power in an election where "none of the above" options looked to have every chance of breaking through. And Option Nationale couldn't manage even that much.

So the progressive vacuum may be even more conspicuous by the next Quebec election than it is now. And a well-organized NDP should be in an ideal position to win over the same types of voters who have become staunch supporters federally.

Of course, the one catch is that a minority government means that the NDP - like all other parties - will have to be ready for an election at any moment, rather than being able to build over a period of several years. But the uncertainty of a minority government may also present some opportunities. While the parties actually represented in the Assemblee Nationale will find themselves trapped in will-they-or-won't-they confidence vote speculation, there may be all the more room for a strong new option to sidestep the fray by echoing the message of cooperation that worked so well for Jack Layton.

In sum, both last night's general "meh" toward Quebec's existing policies and the minority government that resulted may serve to set up ideal conditions for the emergence of a progressive federalist party. And it only remains to be seen whether the NDP can make its entrance in time for the next election.

Update: Margo McDiarmid reports that Tom Mulcair is instead suggesting it's unlikely a provincial party will materialize before 2015 - which looks like a significant missed opportunity to build the NDP at both levels of government if it proves correct.

The reviews are in

The Chronicle Herald lends its voice to the cause of reversing the Harper and Charest governments' shameful insistence on exporting asbestos even while acknowledging that it's not fit for use at home:

Not surprisingly, there’s virtually no use of asbestos in construction anymore in this country.

But for many years, Canada, to its shame, has led an ugly and hypocritical campaign to keep asbestos markets open wherever possible worldwide. Worse, Canada has even fought to keep information on the abundant dangers of asbestos from being distributed — via the UN-sponsored Rotterdam Convention — to countries importing the substance. More than 50 countries have banned the use of asbestos.
...
As the Quebec government pondered a $58-million loan guarantee to revive an old asbestos mine, a group of international health experts issued a stinging rebuke to governments worldwide that have failed to ban the material, despite "overwhelming agreement" that no safe level of exposure exists. It was published last week in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The politics behind continued production — entirely in Quebec — and export of asbestos is killing people.

On bailouts

Kathleen Ruff points out that the serious problems with Canadian asbestos exports are on the verge of going away on their own due to declining markets for a toxic good. But instead of letting that happen, the Charest and Harper governments are using public resources to artificially extend the lifespan of the industry:

Apart from the moral issue of exporting asbestos disease for profit, taxpayers might want to take note of how two supposedly business-minded political leaders are risking public funds and Canada's international political capital to resuscitate an industry that is notorious for its record of economic disaster and public health tragedy.
...
The industry tried unsuccessfully to get financing from private investors. Last year it seemed that a Chinese investment company might do so, but it withdrew at the last moment. Now Charest is stepping in with public funds where private enterprise refused to go.

If the negotiations currently underway succeed, the new mine will open shortly. It will export 200,000 tonnes of asbestos every year for the next 25 years to Asia and, the industry hopes, to Africa, where protections are virtually non-existent and resulting suffering and death will be enormous for decades to come.

With Charest providing financing, Harper has promised to provide international political protection to stop the industry being regulated. Harper is the only Western political leader and the only national Canadian leader to support asbestos. There seems to be no limit to the help he is willing to provide to the industry, including sabotaging a UN convention.

While ruthlessly cutting funding from scientific research on climate change and aboriginal healing programs, when it comes to the annual quarter of a million dollar funding for the asbestos industry's lobby group (the Chrysotile Institute), the Harper government gives the funds without a moment's hesitation, dismissing appeals by the Canadian Cancer Society and health experts.
...
Harper has given the industry his commitment that, as long as he is Prime Minister of Canada, he will support export of asbestos and will block a UN environmental agreement, the Rotterdam Convention, so as to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being put on a list of hazardous substances, as repeatedly requested by the convention's expert body.

Blocking the Rotterdam Convention is an important gift to the industry and one the industry has lobbied the government hard for, using its government-given funds. Sales would suffer if countries were informed of the hazards of asbestos and the necessary safety measures, such as a national inventory of every place where asbestos-containing products have been placed, and specialized equipment, training and processes whenever renovation or demolition takes place.
...
Premier Charest and Prime Minister Harper are about to give the asbestos industry a new life for the next quarter century. History will not forgive this betrayal of our country and of common human decency.

If we, as citizens allow them to do this, we will be seen by the world as the ugly Canadians.

On costly fees

We're still waiting on a strong national response to the Charest government's plan to impose health user fees. But Thomas Walkom offers a reminder as to why there's a need for one:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest says he plans to make patients pay a $25 user fee each time they see a doctor. Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says that sounds fine by him. If this is the so-called adult conversation the country is planning to have on health care, we're in bad shape.

The reason? We've had this hoary, old conversation before – over and over and over again. Mike Harris suggested user fees for medicare when he won the Ontario Tory leadership in 1990. Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien mused about them in 2001, as did Ralph Klein, then Alberta's Conservative premier, a year later.

Each one eventually dropped the idea. First, monkeying with medicare is political dynamite in Canada. But second and more important, user fees don't work.

That's the conclusion of study after study. Earlier in this decade, a Senate committee looked into medicare user fees and, indeed, was initially keen on the idea.

But in the end, it concluded that a low user fee would cost more to collect than it would raise in revenue. And a high user fee would deter the sick from seeking necessary medical help early, contributing to higher costs later on.
...
(O)ff-loading medicare costs onto the sick might make governments look better in the short run. But in the end, we all end up paying as much or more.

On allegiances

It's always worth noting when the public manages to get a glimpse behind the Cons' facade of party unit - as has happened again today. But more significant than the mere fact that there are some internal battles looming is the strategy the Harper regime is appparently using to try to quell them:

A key goal of the postmortems is to put an end to infighting between the provincial supporters of the Quebec Liberal Party and the Action Démocratique du Québec, who make up much of the Conservative team in Quebec.

During the federal campaign, a number of prominent positions were in the hands of ADQ supporters, and many Conservatives with ties to the provincial Liberals blamed them for the poor results.

The clear directive from the Conservative hierarchy is for all Quebec supporters to put their federal allegiances first and foremost...

Conservative organizers are being urged to focus their energies on governing, and to limit their contribution to the current Quebec campaign.

Now, it may seem that Pauline Marois should be sending Harper a thank-you card for the directive. All indications are that the PQ is at least in striking distance of the Charest Liberals - and to the extent Harper succeeds in ordering any substantial chunk of Charest's party to sit out the provincial election, the likelihood of a PQ government increases accordingly.

That is, assuming that Harper's order actually sways anybody to stay out of the provincial campaign. But it's hard to see how the Cons can really expect to have deeper roots than the provincial parties (particularly the Libs). And one could easily foresee most provincial organizers calling the Cons' bluff and severing their federal ties - or at least viewing the other side of the divide with even more suspicion.

So the request to stand down from the provincial race poses loads of potential downsides for the Cons and for those who would heed the call. And all in the interests of...what, exactly? Last anybody checked, there was no indication that even most cabinet ministers had any particular ability to influence the course of Harper's government, meaning that organizers can't expect to get much done merely by focusing on "governing".

At best, one might figure that the Cons are simply looking to lock in half of the internal divide. While there doesn't seem to be any reason to think Charest's party would want to abandon ship in the middle of a run for a majority, it could be that supporters of a weakened ADQ will be willing to make the federal Cons into their main political vehicle.

But that seems to be an awfully remote possibility compared to the virtual certainty that the call to abandon provincial politics will both boost the PQ, and drive away Con organizers who actually care about both levels of government. And it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the latest gambit ends up backfiring even more than most of the Cons' efforts to deal with Quebec.